Psychological Health of Surgeons in a Time of COVID-19: A Global Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of psychological impact among surgical providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted global healthcare systems. We hypothesized that the degree of psychological impact would be higher for surgical providers deployed for COVID-19 work, certain surgical specialties, and for those who knew of someone diagnosed with, or who died, of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a global web-based survey to investigate the psychological impact of COVID-19. The primary outcomes were the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) scores. RESULTS: 4283 participants from 101 countries responded. 32.8%, 30.8%, 25.9% and 24.0% screened positive for depression, anxiety, stress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) respectively. Respondents who knew someone who died of COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD (OR 1.3, 1,6, 1.4, 1.7 respectively, all p < 0.05). Respondents who knew of someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were more likely to screen positive for depression, stress and PTSD (OR 1.2, 1.2 and 1.3 respectively, all p < 0.05). Surgical specialities that operated in the Head and Neck region had higher psychological distress among its surgeons. Deployment for COVID-19-related work was not associated with increased psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have a mental health legacy outlasting its course. The long-term impact of this ongoing traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal mental health care for healthcare personnel, with particular attention to those who know of someone diagnosed with, or who died of COVID-19.

Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can be achieved either by fragmentation and extraction or dusting with spontaneous passage. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the safety and stone-free rate after RIRS by comparing the techniques of dusting vs fragmentation/extraction. Material and methods: This review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The inverse variance of the mean difference and 95% Confidence Interval (CI), Categorical variables were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05. Results: There were 1141 patients included in 10 studies. Stone size was up to 2.5 cm All studies used holmium laser for lithotripsy. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in surgical time (MD -5.39 minutes 95% CI -13.92-2.31, p = 0.16), postoperative length of stay (MD -0.19 days 95% CI -0.60 - -0.22, p=0.36), overall complications (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.58-1.66, p = 0.95), hematuria (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.30-3.42, p = 0.99), postoperative fever (OR 0.70 95% CI 0.41-1.19, p = 0.19) and sepsis (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.10-10.35, p = 0.98), immediate (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.13-1.24, p = 0.11) and overall stone-free rate (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.43-1.32, p = 0.33), and retreatment rate (OR 1.35 95% CI 0.57-3.20, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: This systematic review infers that urologists can safely use either option of fragmentation and basket extraction or dusting without extraction to achieve similar outcomes as both techniques are similar for efficacy and safety.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: Implications for the COVID19 pandemic and beyond

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has led to competing strains on hospital resources and healthcare personnel. Patients with newly diagnosed invasive urothelial carcinomas of bladder (UCB) upper tract (UTUC) may experience delays to definitive radical cystectomy (RC) or radical nephro-ureterectomy (RNU) respectively. We evaluate the impact of delaying definitive surgery on survival outcomes for invasive UCB and UTUC. Methods We searched for all studies investigating delayed urologic cancer surgery in Medline and Embase up to June 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Results We identified a total of 30 studies with 32,591 patients. Across 13 studies (n = 12,201), a delay from diagnosis of bladder cancer/TURBT to RC was associated with poorer overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09–1.45, p = 0.002). For patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC, across the 5 studies (n = 4,316 patients), a delay between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy was not found to be significantly associated with overall survival (pooled HR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.96–1.94, p = 0.08). For UTUC, 6 studies (n = 4,629) found that delay between diagnosis of UTUC to RNU was associated with poorer overall survival (pooled HR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.19–2.02, p = 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (pooled HR of 2.56, 95% CI: 1.50–4.37, p = 0.001). Limitations included between-study heterogeneity, particularly in the definitions of delay cut-off periods between diagnosis to surgery. Conclusions A delay from diagnosis of UCB or UTUC to definitive RC or RNU was associated with poorer survival outcomes. This was not the case for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Influence of Webinar-Based Learning on Practice of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Outcomes of a Global Survey.

Background: With webinars looking to be the mainstay post-pandemic, it is important to demonstrate whether webinars are, indeed, effective educational tools for professional training and skill acquisition. We aim at demonstrating, via a global survey, the efficacy of webinars on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and how this knowledge transforms clinical practice. Methods: A structured online survey covering the following sections: (1) Demographics, (2) PCNL techniques, and (3) PCNL equipment was circulated. The target study population were practicing urologists and residents. Categorical data were presented with counts and percentages, and they were compared by using Chi-square test. Continuous data were analyzed with non-parametric methods. Respondents were dichotomized according to attendance of webinar type, attendees of dedicated PCNL webinars (Group A), or attendees of endourological webinars that discussed some aspects of PCNL (Group B). Results: A total of 303 respondents from 38 countries participated. Overall, 91.7% (n = 278) were in Group A and 8.3% (n = 25) were in Group B; 77.9% were younger than 50 years, whereas 51.8% had more than 10 years of urology experience. In group A, urologists of all ages, in academic institutions and private practitioners, significantly benefited in gaining knowledge about the merits of newer devices and the role of suction-assisted devices in modern PCNL. The majority of group A also reflected that by attending a dedicated PCNL-based webinar they benefited in learning newer positions for PCNL access, especially supine, and how to effectively use laser as energy devices for lithotripsy. In Group B, the only area of benefit was in lasing techniques and the use of newer lasers such as the thulium fibre laser. Conclusion: Our survey positively validates the two proposed hypothesis, that is, webinars as a medium of education do benefit practicing urologists in knowledge and the clinical practice domains. Age, experience, or place of practice is no barrier to adopting newer mediums of education such as webinars.

Implications and effects of COVID-19 on diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to uncertainty on the optimal management for prostate cancer (PCa). This narrative review aims to shed light on the optimal diagnosis and management of patients with or suspected to have PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Faecal-oral or aerosol transmission is possible during prostate procedures; caution must be in place when performing digital rectal examinations, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies and prostate surgeries requiring general anaesthesia. Patients must also be triaged using preoperative polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19. COVID-19 has accelerated the adoption of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), reducing the need for prostate biopsy unless when absolutely indicated, and the risk of COVID-19 spread can be reduced. Combined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, amongst other factors, multiparametric MRI could reduce unnecessary biopsies in patients with little chance of clinically significant PCa. Treatment of PCa should be stratified by the risk level and preferences of the patient. COVID-19 has accelerated the development of telemedicine and clinicians should utilise safe and effective teleconsultations to protect themselves and their patients. SUMMARY: COVID-19 transmission during prostate procedures is possible. Patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) of <3 and PSA density <0.15 ng/ml/ml are deemed low-risk and are safe to undergo surveillance without MRI-targeted biopsy. Intermediate- or high-risk patients should be offered definitive treatment within four months or 30days of diagnosis to avoid compromising treatment outcomes; three-month courses of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy can be considered when a delay of surgery is anticipated.

Clinical outcomes of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in minimally invasive urological surgery.

The adoption of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques has revolutionised urological practice. This necessitates a pneumoperitoneum (PNP) and the impact the PNP pressure has on post-operative outcomes is uncertain. During the current COVID-19 era guidance has suggested the utilisation of lower PNP pressures to mitigate the risk of intra-operative viral transmission. Review the current literature regarding the impact of pneumoperitoneum pressure, within the field of urology, on post-operative outcomes. A search of the PubMed, Medline and EMBASE databases was undertaken to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to. Ten studies, that included both randomised controlled trials and retrospective case series reviews, were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The effect of PNP pressure on outcomes following prostatectomy, live donor nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and a variety of benign upper tract procedures were discussed. Low pressure PNP appears safe when compared to high pressure PNP, potentially reducing post-operative pain and rates of ileus. When compared to general surgery, there is a lack of quality evidence investigating the impact of PNP pressures on outcomes within urology. Low pressure PNP appears non-inferior to high pressure PNP. More research is required to validate this finding, particularly post-cystectomy and nephrectomy.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

How to manage patients with suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma in the pandemic of COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of COVID-19 has disrupted the clinical pathway for patients with suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This aims to investigate the optimal management of UTUC during the pandemic by determining 1) Whether a three-month delay of RNU leads to worsened overall survival, 2) Whether radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) can be performed without prior diagnostic ureteroscopy (URS). METHODS: Consecutive patients with RNU performed for suspected UTUC in four hospitals in Hong Kong and Taiwan were included. Patients with histologically proven UTUC and with RNU performed within one year were dichotomized into early (≤3 months) and delayed (>3 months) RNU groups. Diagnostic performances of predictive models based on pre-URS factors (gross haematuria, suspicious or malignant urine cytology, and filling defect or contrast-enhancing mass on computed tomography), with or without URS, were analysed using receiver operating characteristics and area under curve (AUC). Overall survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2019, 665 patients underwent RNU, and 491 of them had prior diagnostic URS. The early RNU group had a better overall survival (P = 0.015). Early RNU was associated with a better overall survival upon multivariate analysis (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03-2.33, P = 0.035). Large tumour size, multi-focal tumour, T2 or above disease, and positive nodal status were associated with a poorer overall survival. A combination of any 2 out of the 3 pre-URS factors achieved a positive predictive value of 99.5 to 100%. Presence of all 3 pre-URS factors achieved an AUC of 0.851 with URS, and AUC of 0.809 without URS. CONCLUSIONS: A delay of RNU for over 3 months was associated with poorer overall survival and has to be avoided despite the current COVID-19. We can also consider direct RNU based on clinical factors alone. This also avoids URS hospitalization and expedites the clinical pathway of UTUC.

The Uro-oncology Patient and Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2.

As of April 13, 2021, 137 million cases of COVID-19 and 2.95 million deaths have been reported worldwide. On December 21, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was approved for use in the European Union, with efficacy of 95% protection against COVID-19 infection. Several other vaccines are at different stages of assessment by the European Medicines Agency. In addition to the elderly, oncology patients are a vulnerable population in which COVID-19 infection may be more severe. However, owing to the design of the initial studies, evidence on the safety and efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in these patients is scarce and recommendations are based on the opinion of associations, stakeholders, and experts via extrapolation of information and experience for other vaccines, especially influenza vaccines. Despite the limited evidence, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe and vaccination of oncology patients and their close relatives is recommended, although efficacy may be lower in patients with an impaired immune response and the need for additional booster doses is not yet clear. Recommendations include avoiding the use of vaccines based on viral vectors for patients with an impaired immune response, deferring vaccination for immunosuppressed patients or administering the vaccine before immunosuppression, and avoiding chemotherapy receipt between the two doses of a vaccine or on the same day that the vaccine is administered. These recommendations can be extrapolated to urology patients and although evidence is lacking, there should not be greater interference with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines from androgen deprivation therapy or intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin. However, large studies to provide strong evidence for uro-oncology patients are needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the effects of COVID-19 vaccination for patients with urological cancers. The consensus is that the vaccines are safe, and vaccination of cancer patients and their close relatives is recommended.

Delayed surgery for localised and metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation or deferment of many elective cancer surgeries. We performed a systematic review on the oncological effects of delayed surgery for patients with localised or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the targeted therapy (TT) era. METHOD: The protocol of this review is registered on PROSPERO(CRD42020190882). A comprehensive literature search was performed on Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using MeSH terms and keywords for randomised controlled trials and observational studies on the topic. Risks of biases were assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For localised RCC, immediate surgery [including partial nephrectomy (PN) and radical nephrectomy (RN)] and delayed surgery [including active surveillance (AS) and delayed intervention (DI)] were compared. For metastatic RCC, upfront versus deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) were compared. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for quantitative analysis. Delayed surgery was significantly associated with worse cancer-specific survival (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.23-2.27, p < 0.01) in T1a RCC, but no significant difference was noted for overall survival. For localised ≥ T1b RCC, there were insufficient data for meta-analysis and the results from the individual reports were contradictory. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN was associated with better overall survival when compared to upfront CN followed by deferred TT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Noting potential selection bias, there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that delayed surgery is safe in localised RCC. For metastatic RCC, upfront TT followed by deferred CN should be considered.

Acute kidney injury in COVID-19: are kidneys the target or just collateral damage? A comprehensive assessment of viral RNA and AKI rate in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the possible effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on kidney function and assess the rate of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) shedding/detection in urine. RECENT FINDINGS: Most of the research on the topic suggests that for the moment our ability to estimate whether SARS-CoV-2 is a direct causative agent in acute kidney injury (AKI) or whether it has a cytokine storm effect is limited. During our prospective assessment of 333 patients with COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) it was found that frequency of AKI of 9.6% (32 cases). Despite previous data suggestive of the ability to detect SARS-CoV-2 in urine, we were unable to identify any traces of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) in our group. Both COVID-19 severity (odds ratio, OR = 23.09, confidence interval, CI 7.89-67.57, P < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) history (OR = 7.17, CI 2.09-24.47, P = 0.002) were associated with the AKI rate. SUMMARY: AKI is a relatively frequent condition for patients with COVID-19 and is normally correlated with the severity of the disease and the patient's history of CKD. The available data fail to address whether SARS-CoV-2 mRNA is present in urine, whereas our prospective trial data suggest that mRNA is undetectable in urine irrespective of the severity of the disease.

Risks of AKI and Major Adverse Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are closely related. The effect of AKI on the clinical outcomes of these two conditions is unclear. METHODS: This retrospective, territory-wide cohort study used an electronic public healthcare database in Hong Kong to identify patients with SARS or COVID-19 by diagnosis codes, virologic results, or both. The primary endpoint was a composite of intensive care unit admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and/or death. RESULTS: We identified 1670 patients with SARS and 1040 patients with COVID-19 (median ages, 41 versus 35 years, respectively). Among patients with SARS, 26% met the primary endpoint versus 5.3% of those with COVID-19. Diabetes mellitus, abnormal liver function, and AKI were factors significantly associated with the primary endpoint among patients with either SARS or COVID-19. Among patients with SARS, 7.9%, 2.1%, and 3.7% developed stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 AKI, respectively; among those with COVID-19, 6.6%, 0.4%, and 1.1% developed stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 AKI, respectively. In both groups, factors significantly associated with AKI included diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Among patients with AKI, those with COVID-19 had a lower rate of major adverse clinical outcomes versus patients with SARS. Renal function recovery usually occurred within 30 days after an initial AKI event. CONCLUSIONS: AKI rates were higher among patients with SARS than those with COVID-19. AKI was associated with major adverse clinical outcomes for both diseases. Patients with diabetes mellitus and abnormal liver function were also at risk of developing severe consequences after SARS and COVID-19 infection.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

The potential effectiveness of the WHO International Health Regulations capacity requirements on control of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of 114 countries.

OBJECTIVES: We examined if the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) capacities were associated with better COVID-19 pandemic control. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Population-based study of 114 countries. PARTICIPANTS: General population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each country, we extracted: (1) the maximum rate of COVID-19 incidence increase per 100,000 population over any 5-day moving average period since the first 100 confirmed cases; (2) the maximum 14-day cumulative incidence rate since the first case; (3) the incidence and mortality within 30 days since the first case and first COVID-19-related death, respectively. We retrieved the 13 country-specific International Health Regulations capacities and constructed linear regression models to examine whether these capacities were associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality, controlling for the Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product, the population density, the Global Health Security index, prior exposure to SARS/MERS and Stringency Index. RESULTS: Countries with higher International Health Regulations score were significantly more likely to have lower incidence (ß coefficient -24, 95% CI -35 to -13) and mortality (ß coefficient -1.7, 95% CI -2.5 to -1.0) per 100,000 population within 30 days since the first COVID-19 diagnosis. A similar association was found for the other incidence outcomes. Analysis using different regression models controlling for various confounders showed a similarly significant association. CONCLUSIONS: The International Health Regulations score was significantly associated with reduction in rate of incidence and mortality of COVID-19. These findings inform design of pandemic control strategies, and validated the International Health Regulations capacities as important metrics for countries that warrant evaluation and improvement of their health security capabilities.

Will "Hybrid" Meetings Replace Face-To-Face Meetings Post COVID-19 Era? Perceptions and Views From The Urological Community.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the preference and role of 'hybrid' urological meetings compared to face-to-face and online meetings during and after COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcome was finding out the most preferable webinar setting. METHODS: An online global survey was done between June 06 and July 05, 2020, using SurveyMonkey. The target participants were urology healthcare providers. The survey was disseminated via mailing lists and the Twitter platform. RESULTS: A total of 526 urology providers from 56 countries responded to the survey and it was completed by 73.3%. Participants' overall experience was better in a face-to-face meeting, followed by a hybrid and webinar only meeting. While opportunities for networking was identified as high in face-to-face meeting, online webinars were more cost effective, and learning opportunity and reach of audience was higher for hybrid meetings. For online webinar format, Zoom platform was used by 73% and majority (69%) saw it on their laptop or desktop. The preference was for a 1-hour webinar in the evenings with 3-5 speakers. Urology residents rated face-to-face meetings to have better cost-effectiveness when compared to consultants. Post COVID-19, more than half of all respondents would prefer hybrid meetings compared to the other formats. CONCLUSION: While there will be a place for face-to-face meetings, COVID-19 situation has led to a preference towards hybrid meetings which is ideal for a global reach in the future. It is plausible that most urological associations will move towards a hybrid model for their meetings.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Urology Residencies in Asia - An Observational Study

Abstract Objective The Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic affected surgical training in many ways. This observational study was carried out to evaluate the impact of Covid-19 on urological residencies across Asia. Methodology An open-ended survey questionnaire examining key areas in a urology training program was distributed to several urologists in Asia. The survey evaluated seven areas including the burden of Covid-19 disease, the need for re-deployment of residents, the impact on clinical work, the effect on research work for residents, the delivery of teaching to the residents, the impact on training and assessments, the effects on mental, personal health and social welfare of residents. Results Reports from eleven Asian countries were analysed. There is stark variability in Covid-19 disease burden across Asia. Re-deployment occurred in selected Asian countries. Affected residents reported challenges obtaining personal protective equipment and training. Clinical workload and research were generally reduced except for countries reporting low volume Covid-19 cases. Residents teaching evolved from in-person to online platforms. Almost all residency program postponed their examinations. Mental health disturbance was more pronounced than personal health. Conclusions The Covid-19 pandemic presented multiple obstacles towards Asian urology residencies. The understanding of these challenges will assist program directors in developing mitigating measures.

Special strategies and management of urological diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic: initial experiences from a Medical Center of China

ABSTRACT Although urological diseases are not directly related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), urologists need to make comprehensive plans for this disease. Urological conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and tumors are very common in elderly patients. This group of patients is often accompanied by underlying comorbidities or immune dysfunction. They are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and they tend to have severe manifestations. Although fever can occur along with urological infections, it is actually one of the commonest symptoms of COVID-19;urologists must always maintain a high index of suspicion in their clinical practices. As a urological surgeon, how we can protect medical staff during surgery is a major concern. Our hospital had early adoption of a series of strict protective and control measures, and was able to avoid cross-infection and outbreak of COVID-19. This paper discusses the effective measures that can be useful when dealing with urological patients with COVID-19.

Telemedicine Usage Among Urologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologists' perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS: We conducted a global, cross-sectional, web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS: A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% (n=98) of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1% (n=283). Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in telemedicine usage increased from 43.7% (n=139) to 80.8% (n=257) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% (n=244) were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic, and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patients' lack of technological comprehension, patients' lack of access to the required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.